Doctor Who 50th (spoilers)

[Howard_Casto]

I wanted to give it a day or so hoping that people would get a chance to see it, but I wanted to express my opinion and hopefully some of you can answer some questions for me. 

As a whole I liked the special, not so much for the plot (which was utterly ridiculous) but for the character interaction.  Smith, Tennant and Hurt were fantastic.  I will say that "Bad Wolf's" appearance was completely unnecessary.  She seemed a bit over-sexy for no apparent reason and considering she was supposed to represent the AI of a bomb "with a conscience", many of the things she was able to do and/or willing to do didn't make a lick of sense.  Oh and "DAT Baker!"  Seriously, why bother with all of this... put Tom in front of the camera and let him talk for an hour... I would have enjoyed that just as much, maybe more. 

Anyway I have questions... I'm pretty sure like most of Moffett's stuff the answer will be "bad writing" but I'll ask in case some of the fans can clear it up. 

1.  Ok Time Lord art is a moment preserved in time apparently.  So couldn't you restore Galifrey with any old Time Lord painting?

2.  They seem to make a big deal about how the planet wasn't destroyed but was instead put into a time lock.  Didn't we already know this?  I mean wasn't the whole plot of the "End of Time" from a few years back (The last appearance of the Master) that the Time Lords were attempting to escape from time lock?

3.  They won't remember anything because the time streams are mixed up?  What kind of b.s.  excuse is that?  Seriously that's some weak sauce.  Almost as weak as "how are we able to be in the same place at the same time?  Someone must be letting us?"  So you can bend the laws of physics as long as someone gives you permission.  How convenient. 

Those excuses I'm sure were used in the various anniversary specials of the 70's and 80's, but to be frank that was before realistic science fiction (aka Star Trek TNG) was invented... now the audience knows better.   

[yotsuya]

The word "Fiction" in the term "Science Fiction" allows most people to conveniently overlook stuff. 

1. 

2. It was locked because of the use of The Moment, which destroyed it. If you listen to the dialogue, the General mentions to his aide that the Council had tried something and failed. So this change in plan occured after the events of "The End of Time". It's a "different" time lock.

3. Science Fiction. 

I'm actually going to see it again tonight in 3D. I enjoyed it for the same reasons you did. I though using Peter Capaldi was genius as well.

[Howard_Casto]

Sorry dude, but if you don't apply science to the fiction then it's just pure fiction.  The new Doctor Who seems to have a huge problem with this. 

Star Trek TNG, the lord-god of all scifi, had NASA consultants on staff to make sure that the nuts and bolts of most of the plots were at least scientifically possible. 

Now later spin-offs, particularly voyager... not so much and you'll notice their ratings suffered as a result.

2.  Well yeah but that's my point.  The way the 50th episode describes it, the planet is destroyed, but The Doctor knows it wasn't purely because of "The Moment"  So how is bringing the planet back after the war any more positive than that adventure, in which essentially the planet was brought back after the war (the hard way).  My point is, the planet wasn't destroyed, at least not by the logic of this new plan, and so what?  The time Lords are still gonna be ---Deutsche Frankfurters---.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that they made this big deal about "saving" the planet, when it's in exactly the same state as it already was.  The Master shoved the time lords back into the time lock... that lock didn't disappear and thus all of Galifrey is already in a time lock.

I guess I'm a bit lost on how the planet was "destroyed"  It was my understanding via the explanation at The End of Time that it wasn't, it was merely locked in space-time, at the moment before it's destruction which was as good as being destroyed.  So isn't that how it is now?  I mean they mention something about not including the daleks allowing them to destroy each other in the cross-fire... is that the difference?

3.  Nope sorry, science fiction has to be based on science, not on magic and hoodoo nonsense... unless you are a Star Wars fan that is.  Truth be told it's ok if the science doesn't exactly pan out, so long as it sounds like it will.  In other words, when in doubt use complicated technical jargon.

[yotsuya]

3.  Nope sorry, science fiction has to be based on science, not on magic and hoodoo nonsense... unless you are a Star Wars fan that is.  Truth be told it's ok if the science doesn't exactly pan out, so long as it sounds like it will.  In other words, when in doubt use complicated technical jargon.

Then perhaps we should catergorize Doctor Who as Science Fantasy, then. 

[Howard_Casto]

Well according to Moffett that's what he wants Doctor Who to be... thus why at least 50% of his episodes are crap.  Flying sharks.... yeah they are cool when you are 8, heck they are still cool, but after you've seen a flying shark you can't take anything else that happens seriously. 

[danny_galaga]

I haven't watched it as I sort of went off the Doctor once Matt Smith came along. For most people outside of the US, Doctor Who is from our childhood. It didn't take itself too seriously back then (I'm 43, I'm a Tom Baker man) and they didn't worry too much about discrepancies. They are more hung up about discrepancies now, but still make it so that it doesn't make too much sense if thought about for any amount of time. Until matt Smith, I enjoyed each episode as it stood, loosely following the underlying (or is that over arching?) story. Eventually I'll watch the Matt Smith episodes...

I guess what I'm saying is, don't worry about how inconsistent it is. That was always part of the fun 

[shponglefan]

3.  Nope sorry, science fiction has to be based on science, not on magic and hoodoo nonsense... unless you are a Star Wars fan that is.  Truth be told it's ok if the science doesn't exactly pan out, so long as it sounds like it will.  In other words, when in doubt use complicated technical jargon.

Arguing what "scif-fi" should constitute is a bit silly.  It's an extraordinarily broad genre that empasses stuff which is basically fantasy-in-space to stuff firmly grounded in reality, and everything in between.

Doctor Who is clearly more towards the fantasy side... we're talking about a mostly immortal being who looks remarkably like a human being traveling through time and space in a police phone box.  If you can buy into that premise, then rest should be easy.

[Howard_Casto]

It isn't silly at all.  It isn't an extraordinary board genre, it's just loosely defined.  If your show is so out there that it can't even fit within the criteria of "based within the realm of theoretical/believable scientific possibility"  then it isn't scifi.  An no, fantasy space stuff is fantasy....  it doesn't fall within the genre.  So I'm not really arguing, I'm telling... there isn't any debate to be had. 

The whole "if you can believe that a _____ can ____" argument is lame and is just an excuse for poor writing.  It's a common understanding that the more fantastical the premise, the more believable the stories have to be. 

Regeneration, the Tardis (which is NOT a police box... it just looks like one), all that business is actually fairly believable and grounded in scientific fact (except for the traveling backwards through time bit, but then you'd have no show).  So it does the show a great dis-service to use silly stories.  Besides this goes beyond scientific theory and down to issues in pure logic, that's when the writing is really bad. 

Inconsistency isn't something I can either choose to ignore or not.  I'm very logical and detail oriented.  If something is written badly it takes me out of the story and I can't enjoy it.  I'm one of the people that at 12 years old (or around there) noticed the digital alarm clock in the pilot episode of Quantum Leap and couldn't get over what a careless mistake it was.... running the rest of the episode for me.   

[shponglefan]

Inconsistency isn't something I can either choose to ignore or not.  I'm very logical and detail oriented.

So am I.  But I've learned to put that aside depending on what I am watching.  It makes it easier to enjoy things

[danny_galaga]

Inconsistency isn't something I can either choose to ignore or not.  I'm very logical and detail oriented.

You are watching the wrong show then 

[danny_galaga]

Ok, just watched it. Very enjoyable and I loved Tom Bakers cameo.

5/5 

[shponglefan]

Anyone see the Five(ish) Doctors Reboot special?  It's hilarious.  It features several of the actors who played the 5th, 6th, and 7th Doctors playing themselves (sorta) in an effort to become part of the 50th anniversary special.  It has tons of cameos, in-jokes, all sorts of stuff.  Just what a classic Doctor Who nerd like me appreciates. 

[yotsuya]

Yes. I hope it's part of the Day of the Doctor Blu-ray.